There go all my filters

DanMcGuire · Jun 21, 2007

I was dissatisfied with 4x5 so I moved onto a 5x7 setup. I just received a new to me lens, and I am surprised at the size of the thing. It is a 300mm 5.6 Rodenstock. A lens that I assumed would be a bit bigger than my 210mm 5.6 Rodenstock. I must admit that I have never seen a lens with a focal length larger than 210mm for LF. But I was quite surprised at the size of the bugger.

There go all my filters. That is what I am asking about. What type of filters do other people with this size lens use. I looked up the stats on the lens and the filter size was listed at 86mm.

The filter size for the 210mm is listed at 67mm.

I do not want to start a flame war here but what type of filters are used by the people out there. What are my options, as seen by others. But not Kodak gels. They seem too fragile to me.

Who has the next size up lens, I believe that it is the 340mm. I would like to know the filter size for that in case I want to get into 8x10. Should I buy filters to work on the 340mm because I do not want to have to do this again.

Thanks for any hints yopu care to give me.

Nick Zentena · Jun 21, 2007

What are you photographing? Plenty of longer lenses with reasonable sized filters. IIRC something like the 450mm Fuji-c uses 52mm filters.

It's not the focal length that leads to the big lens. It's the F/stop. I bet if you compare say the Fuji 300mm C [F/8.5?? or F/9?] it'll look tiny next to your lens.

If you don't want to use gels then you could look at glass but it gets mighty expensive above 82mm.

Terence · Jun 21, 2007

Lee or Cokin filter systems. You just get an adapter ring for each lens.

Lee are a better quality, but the Cokin are what I can currently afford.

Lee Shively · Jun 21, 2007

You can use gels attached to the rear of the lens. I suppose you could even tape your current filters over the rear element if it's not too big.

ben-s · Jun 21, 2007

I'll second the recommendation for Cokin.
They are cheaper than the Lee series, but if looked after properly, they aren't bad.
The main weakness is that they can scratch easily, being made from CR39 optical resin with no hardcoat.
I'm not entirely sure what material the lee filters are made from, but I believe at least some of them are glass.

wildbill · Jun 21, 2007

That's a huge lens made for 8x10. Sell the lens for a 305mm G claron, 67mm filters and covers 8x10.
Or a 300mm nikkor m covers 5x7 and uses 52mm filters. I'm selling one on ebay. I standardized on 72mm then 82mm since i've got a MF lens that takes 77mm. Get step up rings and some Tamron lens caps for those and you'll be set. Don't buy tiffen filters. Get B+W or heliopan. better rings, better coating, and they're thinner.

Nick Zentena · Jun 21, 2007

Does the lens take rear filters? It might be smaller.

Robert Hall · Jun 21, 2007

Dont complain to loudly, my lenses take 95 and 105mm.

I use B+W. Best around.

Sirius Glass · Jun 21, 2007

Robert Hall said:
Dont complain to loudly, my lenses take 95 and 105mm.

I use B+W. Best around.

I am glad to see that Robert jumped right in to cheer him up and see the bright side.

Steve

roteague · Jun 21, 2007

Lee and B+W filters. I don't like to pinch pennies when the question is quality.

Curt · Jun 21, 2007

How many do you need, it couldn't add up to any more than a thousand dollars? Look at the size of the rear element. Start out slow with and build a collection.

John Kasaian · Jun 21, 2007

Lee 4x4 filters, Calumet frames and that Lee rubberband thingy works for me.

Gary-M · Jun 21, 2007

I've standardized on 82mm filters and use step up adaptors permanently attached to each lens. In the case of my 300mm f/5.6, I attached the adaptor to the rear of the lens. It just takes some care when attaching the lensboard to the camera. Saves buying a lot of filters. I use Heliopan filters.

Gary

Roger Hicks · Jun 22, 2007

Most of the lenses I own are covered by 100mm square, though not my 21 inch Ross on which I don't use filters (it's my 8x10 portrait lens).

Don't worry about quality. Everyone who has done serious testing on this -- including Ctein, who is a far better experimentalist than I -- sees no degradation on 35mm, let alone LF. Only window glass leads to a significant degradation.

What you pay for with more expensive filters is improved consistency (same colour from batch to batch -- rarely important in mono), better mechanical construction (such as brass filter rings instead of light alloy) and superior (mostly harder) coating.

Cheers,

Riger

Adrian Twiss · Jun 23, 2007

Does anyone have a view on the Cokin X pro series? On other forums opinion is divided. Some consider them an excellent product and others think they are poor quality and that Lee filters rule the roost.

mmcclellan · Jun 23, 2007

Gel filters are far better than glass and much cheaper with more options. You can get rear filter holders that will work on all your lenses (or maybe two different sizes of holders at most) so you can use the same filters with all of them. A few paper envelopes of gels and you're good to go -- less weight, better optical clarity, fewer surfaces for flare and dust, more choices for filtration, and quite convenient to boot.

They're really unbeatable.

kjsphoto · Jun 24, 2007

I use heliopan filters and step down rings. That way my filters fit all my lenses. Buy the filters to fit the largest lens you have and get the step down rings to fit the rest. One set of filters covers all your lenses.

Robb Scharetg · Jun 24, 2007

Filters?

Harrison + Harrison 4" squares and 4x6" for grads. Can't beat 'em. It's what the film folks use.

Robb

dickie vaara · Jun 28, 2007

Filters

Robert Hall said:
Dont complain to loudly, my lenses take 95 and 105mm.

I use B+W. Best around.

I couldn't agree more......my local pro shop said that if I used anything other than B+W, my photography would be compromised, and proceeded to tell me why and how. That's the kind of quality advice that I appreciate you passing on to our members.

Richard Vaara
Everett, WA

Curt · Jun 28, 2007

I couldn't agree more......my local pro shop said that if I used anything other than B+W, my photography would be compromised, and proceeded to tell me why and how. That's the kind of quality advice that I appreciate you passing on to our members.

Who? Kens?

Early Riser · Jun 29, 2007

Robert Hall said:
Dont complain to loudly, my lenses take 95 and 105mm.

I use B+W. Best around.

Don't complain too loudly either, my 360mm Sironar-S takes 112 mm filters.

KenM · Jun 29, 2007

mmcclellan said:
Gel filters are far better than glass and much cheaper with more options. You can get rear filter holders that will work on all your lenses (or maybe two different sizes of holders at most) so you can use the same filters with all of them. A few paper envelopes of gels and you're good to go -- less weight, better optical clarity, fewer surfaces for flare and dust, more choices for filtration, and quite convenient to boot.

They're really unbeatable.

Too fragile, too floppy, and don't get any water on them. Yes, they're optically good (and perhaps better than high quality filters), but they're just too darn fragile for my liking.

Early Riser · Jun 29, 2007

You need to be very careful using gel, resin or poly filters with long lenses, they can actually degrade the image substantially. Glass is best.

Neanderman · Jun 29, 2007

Check to see if the rear cell is threaded. It might be smaller than the front, might fit your filters, possibly using a step up ring.

Ed

DanMcGuire · Jun 30, 2007

Rear filters

A number of you advised on the use of rear element filters. That may be a way to get around the need for larger filters. Has anybody had any experiences with this type of filter setup on a filed camera.

Thanks for any input that you may have

There go all my filters

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency